Excerpts from David E. Wheeler's message of mié ene 12 16:39:56 -0300 2011:
> On Jan 12, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> [ Id actually vote for _not_ having a compatibility option at all, we
> >> change more major things than this IMHO every major release. (And even
> >> then some major things in minor releases, for example the removal of
> >> Safe.pm) ]
> > I think the main question here is: how loudly is existing code going to
> > break? If the breakage is silent, it's going to be very problematic.
> > If functions fail to run at all, then we can live without the
> > compatibility option.
> I suspect it'd be quiet, unfortunately, since there are a bazillion ad hoc implementations of a Perl SQL array parser, and many of them, I suspect, don't complain if the string doesn't look like an SQL array. They would just parse a string like "ARRAY(0x118ee2a0)" and return an empty array, or a NULL.
I kinda doubt that a function failing in that way would pass any
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-01-12 19:52:21|
|Subject: Re: WIP: Range Types |
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-01-12 19:42:57|
|Subject: Re: WIP: Range Types|